3 ms·

Is this like a Richard Stallman ideological thing? (EDIT: Genuine question - I'm trying to understand if this is a license purity issue or something else).

Macha 3y ago
People like having choice. The SSPL provides less choice than open source licenses. It came about because users were utilising their choice in way the project leaders didn't like, because they didn't directly financially benefit from it. But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today. If it had launched as some proprietary single-vendor cloud service, people would have kept using memcached, or their relational DB or whatever for a lot of Redis use cases where it might be nice, but not essential improvements over the competition. So it's shutting the door behind them, accusing the users of taking advantage of the very thing that let Redis get to where they are today. (Especially so for Redis, where Redis Labs started as just another hosted provider unassociated with the open source projects)
- wink 3y ago
  > But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today. I'd honestly love to know how many people actually use any of the features added to Redis in the last... 5 or 8 years. I'm not saying they were useless, but Redis used to be a pretty fine piece of software that could have easily been done for many use cases, 10 years ago.
prmoustache 3y ago
What is commonly known as open source nowadays is a license that follows the definition adopted by the Open Source Initiative. SSPL is considered as not approved because it encumber unrelated programs to the one licensed by the SSPL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003977.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.ope... So it is a combination of idealogical issue as well as being an annoyance to people who adopted it because it was released under the BSD in the first place.
yau8edq12i 3y ago
Yes, it's an ideological type of thing. Meanwhile, most of the same people don't mind using closed standards like HDMI or kinda proprietary software like Android.
- diggan 3y ago
  I'm sure there are plenty of people who do mind using HDMI and/or Android but in lack of other realistic alternatives for one or more reasons, end up with the pragmatic choice of using those things anyways.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  I don't think your snarky remark about hdmi or android is pertinent. Regardless is stuff is open or proprietary, nobody like when the terms of a contract change without their consent. People/companies have adopted redis under a specific license, which really is kind of a binding contract, then one day under a new release the terms have changed making it incompatible with their intended use. It is only natural that an alternative, and in this case a fork appears.
nurple 3y ago
For some people, yes. But for the majority, I'd say no. In my mind a lot of the outrage is just generated through FUD that the big corps create when their ability to place themselves in a position to create false scarcity (and hence "value") is threatened. A big clue to these types of people are if they say anything about money or profit: e.g. "OSS devs need to make money too" For the RMS believers, OSS is a more fundamental attempt to change mankind at a time before the greedy asshats could capture and restrict things. The birth of the electronic age, and software in particular was viewed as a golden opportunity to capture the value we created for EVERYONE. This is a HUGE reason you see so many OSS devs that will work thanklessly on code for years or decades for no pay, they are the doctors-without-borders of the tech world, they really give a shit about freeing humanity from usury and corporate value capture. It's been really interesting to watch as the internet was captured, in a space where the cost of reproduction is literally zero, they've still been incredibly successful in strategically shunting a lion's share of the value for themselves where they then proceed with leveraging the artificial scarcity to capture that value monetarily. Considering this in the face of what we've been taught about today's capitalist society, owning the means of production is really only a small part of the greedy antisocial playbook of those who market in false scarcity. Don't think for a second that this isn't an ideological war, one that will be fought with all the information weapons at the disposal of those who stand to lose in a free and open society.

Macha 3y ago

People like having choice. The SSPL provides less choice than open source licenses. It came about because users were utilising their choice in way the project leaders didn't like, because they didn't directly financially benefit from it. But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today. If it had launched as some proprietary single-vendor cloud service, people would have kept using memcached, or their relational DB or whatever for a lot of Redis use cases where it might be nice, but not essential improvements over the competition. So it's shutting the door behind them, accusing the users of taking advantage of the very thing that let Redis get to where they are today. (Especially so for Redis, where Redis Labs started as just another hosted provider unassociated with the open source projects)

wink 3y ago
> But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today. I'd honestly love to know how many people actually use any of the features added to Redis in the last... 5 or 8 years. I'm not saying they were useless, but Redis used to be a pretty fine piece of software that could have easily been done for many use cases, 10 years ago.

prmoustache 3y ago

What is commonly known as open source nowadays is a license that follows the definition adopted by the Open Source Initiative. SSPL is considered as not approved because it encumber unrelated programs to the one licensed by the SSPL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003977.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.ope... So it is a combination of idealogical issue as well as being an annoyance to people who adopted it because it was released under the BSD in the first place.

yau8edq12i 3y ago

Yes, it's an ideological type of thing. Meanwhile, most of the same people don't mind using closed standards like HDMI or kinda proprietary software like Android.

diggan 3y ago
I'm sure there are plenty of people who do mind using HDMI and/or Android but in lack of other realistic alternatives for one or more reasons, end up with the pragmatic choice of using those things anyways.
prmoustache 3y ago
I don't think your snarky remark about hdmi or android is pertinent. Regardless is stuff is open or proprietary, nobody like when the terms of a contract change without their consent. People/companies have adopted redis under a specific license, which really is kind of a binding contract, then one day under a new release the terms have changed making it incompatible with their intended use. It is only natural that an alternative, and in this case a fork appears.

nurple 3y ago

For some people, yes. But for the majority, I'd say no. In my mind a lot of the outrage is just generated through FUD that the big corps create when their ability to place themselves in a position to create false scarcity (and hence "value") is threatened. A big clue to these types of people are if they say anything about money or profit: e.g. "OSS devs need to make money too" For the RMS believers, OSS is a more fundamental attempt to change mankind at a time before the greedy asshats could capture and restrict things. The birth of the electronic age, and software in particular was viewed as a golden opportunity to capture the value we created for EVERYONE. This is a HUGE reason you see so many OSS devs that will work thanklessly on code for years or decades for no pay, they are the doctors-without-borders of the tech world, they really give a shit about freeing humanity from usury and corporate value capture. It's been really interesting to watch as the internet was captured, in a space where the cost of reproduction is literally zero, they've still been incredibly successful in strategically shunting a lion's share of the value for themselves where they then proceed with leveraging the artificial scarcity to capture that value monetarily. Considering this in the face of what we've been taught about today's capitalist society, owning the means of production is really only a small part of the greedy antisocial playbook of those who market in false scarcity. Don't think for a second that this isn't an ideological war, one that will be fought with all the information weapons at the disposal of those who stand to lose in a free and open society.